Appeal No. 2003-0124
Application No. 09/487,832
others will devote their efforts toward
exploiting the limits of the patent's
language:
An invention exists most importantly as a
tangible structure or a series of drawings.
A verbal portrayal is usually an afterthought
written to satisfy the requirements of patent
law. This conversion of machine to words
allows for unintended idea gaps which cannot
be satisfactorily filled. Often the
invention is novel and words do not exist to
describe it. The dictionary does not always
keep abreast of the inventor. It cannot.
Things are not made for the sake of words,
but words for things. Autogiro Co. of
America v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 397
[155 USPQ2d 697] (Ct. Cl. 1967).
The language in the patent claims may not
capture every nuance of the invention or
describe with complete precision the range of
its novelty. If patents were always
interpreted by their literal terms, their
value would be greatly diminished.
Unimportant and insubstantial substitutes for
certain elements could defeat the patent, and
its value to inventors could be destroyed by
simple acts of copying. For this reason, the
clearest rule of patent interpretation,
literalism, may conserve judicial resources
but is not necessarily the most efficient
rule. The scope of a patent is not limited
to its literal terms but instead embraces all
equivalents to the claims described. See
Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330, 347 (1854).
1717
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007